Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is.
I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Of Flipping Coins and Clueless EvoTARDs

-
500 coin flips will result in some pattern of heads and tails. This is true. Not only that but each pattern of heads and tails will have the same probability of occurring.

That ain't the issue. Try calling the sequence ahead of time and then toss the coin to see if you can "hit" the pre-specified pattern. If you do there is a good chance that chance alone was not at play.

EvoTARDs are so stupid they do not grasp that point. All heads (500 heads) is a pre-specification. All tails is also.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

This Just In- The Stupidity Nevers Ends

The set of non-negative integers, {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,...} does NOT contain the set of non-negative even integers, {2,4,6,8,10,...} AND have the positive odd integers left unmatched.

For some reason it is NOT correct to use the naturally derived alignment, ie exact matching of numbers, and instead an artificially constructed, ie contrived, alignment, which transforms all members into generic elements, is preferred. Yet no one can why nor what good that does.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Infinte Sets of Transformers!

-
Finally, I get it- well actually I had already been down that path, but here I am again.

Sets' memebers, also know as elements, are transformers. Sure they have one identity in the set but when comparing two sets the elements can be transformed, oranges can be apples, even numbers can become odd numbers and some can remain even! A 2 becomes a 1. A 4 becomes a 2- fucking TRANSFORMERS!

Cantor was way ahead of his time- more so than anyone could have thought. 19th century transformers. Optimus Prime would be proud.

So with the transformer axiom {2,4,6,8,...} does have the same cardinality as {1,2,3,4,...} because the {2,4,6,8,...} can be transformed into {1,2,3,4,...}. And everyone can see that {1,2,3,4,...} = {1,2,3,4,...}.

So I am down with all of that! Just don't tell me that you are comparing the cardinality of the set of non-negative inetgers to the set of non-negative even integers. That would be a lie.

keiths Still Proud to be an Ignorant Asshole

-
keiths, just shut up. Obviously you are just a drooling moron.

You insist that {1,2,3,…} is twice as large as {2,4,6,…}. If so, then it should be impossible to set up a one-to-one correspondence between them, because the smaller set should run out of elements before the larger one does.

LoL! Just cuz you say so! No keiths. The first set will have 2x the elements as the second set FOREVER- for infinity.

Yet the mapping F(n) = 2n works just fine, with neither set running out of elements. For every n in {1,2,3,…} there is a 2n in {2,4,6,…}. No leftovers.

LoL! Your 2n "mapping" proves my claim you moron. If the first set was not twice as large as the second then you could not use 2n. The fact that it is 2x larger is exemplified by 2n.

Let A = all non-negative positive even integers

Let B = all positive odd integers

Let C = all non-negative integers

It is obvious that A + B = C

It is also obvious that neither A nor B = 0. And the equation proves that a does not = C and B does not = C. Yet Cantor sez A=B=C, and you morons bought it!

If cardinality refers to the number of elements in a set, and we add elements to a set, how can the cardinality stay the same?

Friday, June 14, 2013

For Elizabeth Liddle- How to Falsify Any Given Design Inference

-
Lizzie Liddle just cannot grasp reality. She sez:

That’s not because there aren’t perfectly good ways of inferring Design (there are), but because by refusing to make any specific Design-based predictions, Dembski’s hypothesis remains (let the irony not be missed) unfalsifable.

LoL! There aren't any chance-based predictions, Lizzie. There aren't any predictions borne from accumulations of genetic accidents, lizzie. But that doesn't stop assholes like you from declaring Darwinism/ evolutionism is science.

But I digress. The way to falsify any given design inference is by demonstrating chance and necessity are up to the task- ie can produce the pattern/ structure/ object in question.

ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

keiths, STILL a Lying Piece-of-Shit Asshole

-
keiths is a fucking liar and coward. He is too afraid to come here even though my blog is open to him. Now he spews more lies and flase accusations:

Joe,

You are making the same mistakes again and again.

Fuck you. YOU are a liar and a moron.

And as I said one set will ALWAYS be greater than the other- always and forever, for infinity even.

“Always” means “at every point in time”. Every point in time is finite. Infinity is not a point.

Every point in time FOREVER. Infinity is a journey you ignorant ass.

At every finite point in time, the Joe Train will have picked up roughly twice as many natural numbers as positive even integers. So what? You can’t generalize that result to infinity, because infinity is not a point. The train will never reach it.

AGAIN, one set will ALWAYS be greater than the other- for INFINITY you dickless wonder.

You also have some very odd ideas about time and sets.

Coming from you that is meaningless drivel.

You seem to think that finite sets, if they are growing and will never stop growing, are already infinite.

Nope. That thought never crossed my mind. YOU are just a strawman creating coward.

You also seem unable to think about infinite sets in non-temporal terms.

Elizabeth Liddle, So Stupid it Hurts

-
Poor old Lizzie Liddle, clueles until the end. Lizzie sez:

It doesn’t matter how “consistent” Dembski has been in his assertion that Design detection requires “careful investigation to identify the relevant chance hypothesis”. Unless Dembski can actually compute the probability distribution under the null that some relevant chance hypothesis is true, he has no way to reject it.

You stupid fuck! YOU or someone from your position needs to show that it even deserves a place at the probability table.

IOW no one can even demonstrate any "relevant chance hypothesis" wrt the OoL nor the evolution of any biological system or subsystem.

You evoTARDs are so fucking stupid that you don't even grasp that simple fact.
That is the real elephant in the room, Lizzie, you clueless loser.

And keiths proves he is still a cluless fuck:

It’s ironic that ID proponents are always demanding mutation-by-mutation accounts of how this or that biological feature evolved, because that is the level of detail they must provide in order to justify the values they assign to P(T|H).

Umm, dumbass, it is your position making the claim that accumulations of random mutations can do this or that. Therefor the onus is on you to demonstrate such a thing. IOW don't blame us because your position is writing checks it cannot cash.

It’s even worse for them, in fact, because P(T|H) must encompass all possible evolutionary pathways to a given endpoint.

AGAIN, it is up to you to show that your position even deserves a place at the probability table. And stop blaming us because you are unable to do so.

Also it is NOT about "evolutionary pathways"- that is just cowardly equivocation. It is all about blind and undirected chemical processes being able to produce something. And to date you can't even muster a testable hypothesis for such a scenario.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

keiths, Total Moron

-
Give up keiths, you are nothing but a lowlife moron. Now keiths sez:

we have asserted that the cardinality of a set does not depend on the identity of its elements — only on their numerosity.

Umm the numerosity depends on their identity on the number line.

To Joe, that means that we are claiming that “numbers have no meaning.”

They don't if you place them in a one-to-one correspondence by rearranging their position on that number line.

Substitute one number for another and the cardinality of a set doesn’t change: {1,2,3} has the same cardinality as {5,6,7}.

Hey lowlife, we are talking about allegedly infinite sets. Therefor bringing a finite set into the discussion is dishonest.

Then to prove he is an asshole, keiths sez:

So Mr. “I fix things- all kinds of things- mechanical, electrical, electronic and personal” was unable to connect to a website and download some PDFs without outside help?

LoL! I didn't need any outside help- I did it on my own. Just because people offered to help doesn't mean I needed it.

And keiths continues his cowardly lies:

It has never dawned on Joe that the process of counting — which he wholeheartedly endorses, even for infinite sets — is exactly the sort of thing he says should never be done.

Your false accusation means nothing. But it does expose you are a liar.

Why? Because it involves setting up a one-to-one correspondence between non-identical elements.

Counting does NOT require such a thing you lowlife moron. And not only that Jerad now agrees with me!

How do you count the elements in {5, 23, 41, 99, 666}?

By counting them, asshole. Again with the finite set as if your deception and dishoesty mean something.

And not to be outdone on the TARD, Richie the coward, chimes in:

If Joe had two beans and one had “15″ pained on it, he’d have 16 beans by Joemath.

If Richie and keiths had a brain, they would be dangerous. You assholes are pathetic and apparently you are proud of your cowardice.

I dare you two to try the following:

Try it- start at 0 and count every non-negative integer with one counter
and every positive even integer with another. The counter counting the
non-negative integers will always be at least 2x that as the other counter, ie
it will always have more elements- ALWAYS- as long as infinity exists and
especially when infinity ceases to exist.

Counting- Jerad Finally Admits that I am Right!

-
Yessirree, it took some time but Jerad has finally opened his eyes and mind. I had posted:

Try it- start at 0 and count every non-negative integer with one counter and
every positive even integer with another. The counter counting the non-negative
integers will always be at least 2x that as the other counter, ie it will always
have more elements- ALWAYS- as long as infinity exists and especially when
infinity ceases to exist.

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Set Theory: Counting is Irrelevant when Counting the Number of Elements?

-
The cardinality of a set refers to the number of elements it contains. A number that is arrived at by counting the elements in the set.

However when confronted with a set that is infinite, ie only ends when we* do, you cannot count them all. So, knowing that infinity is a journey, I said that one can take countably infinite sets and compare them by counting a finite representation of the set, establish a pattern that will also go on for infinity, and then compare those patterns.

For example:

Let set A = {1,2,3,4,...} and set B = {2,4,6,8,...}. Set A has a 2-to-1 advantage over set B in the finite represenation to 10. And that advantage will never change, ie it will always remain, always and forever, for infinity. Therefor set A's cardinality > set B's cardinality.

The difference is in the way I compare sets with the way Cantor does. He treats everything in a set as an arbitrary object, with no value. For Cantor, {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10} and {2,4,6,8,10} line up:

{1,2,3,4, 5, 6,7,8,9,10}
{2,4,6,8,10}, with the first 5 elements "matching" and set A's last 5 left unmatched.

In JoeMath those sets would line up:

{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10}
{ 2, 4, 6, 8, 10}, with the match being the actual matching number. That is because JoeMath treats the numbers with respect and allows them their place on the number line. Not only that JoeMath says that we actually have to count the members of the sets to figure out the cardinality.

No, Richie, one does not have to count every member. All one has to do is establish a pattern in order to get the relative cardinality- that is one set's cardinality relative to another set's.

One train with two (or more) counters will always count more positive integers than it will positive even integers- always and forever. So why would Cantor say the two sets are equal? It ain't as if the counters are lying...

So 8x7 can be anything? 1-5 can be a positive number?That is what can happen when you don't treat numbers with the respect I said, ie act like keiths and Cantor- numbers have no meaning. And on another note, no one can download a PDF from a website that they cannot connect to. Fucking morons...

Friday, June 07, 2013

How cantor Looked for and Found a "One-to-One Corresponce" WRT Countably Infinite Sets

-
How to look for and find a one-to-one corresponce between two (or more) countably infinite sets:

First you look for ... (an elipsis). This elipsis will be inside of the {} and usually after the highest provided digit. Make sure there isn't any digits after the elipsis (more looking). Stack the sets on top of one another- for example

{0,1,2,3,...}
{2,4,6,8,...}

And voila'! You have found the one-to-one correspondence! For those who cannot see it just draw a line connecting the first element of the top set to the first element of the bottom set. Do the same for the remaining elements. Yup keep going for infinity and let me know when you are done. :)

Cantor's is the "frustrated child" methodology. I can hear him now:

Oh my God, thinking about infinity hurts so let's just say if a set is countable as well as infinite then its cardinality will be the same as all other sets that are also countable and infinite. And if a set is uncountable and infinite, then it has a greater cardinality than countable and infinite sets because, well, let's face it, it's uncountable and that hurts more to think about than infinity.

Thursday, June 06, 2013

keiths, still a total asshole

-
Now keiths sez:

What’s really funny is that according to you, any pattern that holds for finite sets also holds for infinite ones. Since changing the labels doesn’t change the cardinality of the finite set described above, then according to you it shouldn’t change the cardinality of the infinite set that I described in my first scenario.

You stupid fuck, the cardinality is NOT the same as the PATTERN. Also relabeling the elements could change the pattern. For example {1,2,3,4,...} relabeled to {2,4,6,8,...} has a pattern shift, from counting by ones to counting by twos.

The problem is you, keiths. You actually believe your refuted bullshit and use it to furtehr erect your strawman.

Not only are you “obvioulsy” wrong to claim that relabeling changes the cardinality of the infinite set — you’ve also contradicted yourself.

I didn't contradict anything. And obvioulsy you cannot demonstrate that I am wrong in what I claim.

Then keiths PROVES once and for all that he is a total fucking asshole:

Count the elements of the following sets, and give us your answers:

{0,1,2,…}

{1,2,3,…}

{7,8,9,…}

{2,4,6,…}

You dipshit. A count shows that the first set will always have one more member than the second, which will always have 6 more members than the third set. And the first three sets will have a cardinality that is greater than the fourth.

But thanks for proving that you are too stupid to follow along.

What does your “methodology” say about the cardinality of the set of natural numbers versus the set of real numbers between 0 and 1, inclusive?

My methodology says that you are a fucking jackass loser. If you want to keep asking me questions then you have to pay me. And your "proof" of infinity has been refuted- well it has been expsoed as a fraud.

Nice job- but be sure to keep linking to it as if it matters.

Imagine you have a countably infinite collection of objects, to which you have applied sticky labels with the numbers “1″, “2″, “3″, etc., written on them. Each label is unique; no two labels contain the same number.

Impossible to attach a sticky note to every item in an allegedly infinite set. Imagine you had a brain and some sense of decency- hey that would be a huge change.

The whole problem is that there isn't any such thing as a countably infinite set of objects you dumbass. And when talking about numbers we are NOT talking about any ole arbitrary collection of objects!

How many fucking times do I have to go over this?

Tell you what keiths- go find an infinite collection of objects, label them and then get back to me. Otherwise go fuck yourself and your stupid strawman.

keiths "responds":

No elements are added or removed when going from {1,2,3,…} to {2,4,6,…}.

The members, ie elements, 1,3,5,7,... are all missing in the second set. Or are you blind and stupid?

The existing elements are simply relabeled, as you just acknowledged.

Umm you cannot relabel something to an existing member's label. As I said you are obvioulsy just a clueless ass and apparently proud of it.

Yet according to you, the set loses half its elements during the relabeling process. Where do they go, Joe? Who removes them?

The positive odd integers are gone, keiths. You removed them with your ignorance and you think that ignorance means something.

You cut my list short and left out the very best ones, Joe:

Pay me or fuck off asshole. I have already refuted everything you have thrown at me.

If you think that {0,1,2,…} has one more element than {1,2,3,…}, then you think that ∞ is one greater than ∞ – 1.

Nope. I have already said infinity doesn't exist. And I don't need infinity to make my case. Any long journey will do.

Joe Math gives different answers for {0,1,10,11,100,101,…}, depending on how you interpret the labels

Again, just because you are a fucking asshole, that doesn't refute what I have claimed. And I don't even know what that emans- gives different answers- different answers to what?

In the set {1,3,7,13,21,31, 43,…}, the gap between the numbers increases as the elements get larger.

So what? I can deal with that.

BTW, numbers are NOT labels, keiths. If putting numbers into a set takes away their identity then you ain't doing math.

On refuting keiths' "proof" of infinity:

If you’ve refuted it, then you should be able to explain exactly where it is mistaken.

I have. You just ignore everything that doesn't bode well for you and prattle on.

And yes keiths, I do see why you laugh- you are a fucking drooling moron who cannot even follow a simple concept.

A Note for Jerad, the Asshole Wanker

-
EvoTARDs are so clueless. For example I say that saying two countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality is useless and worthless. It doesn't give us anything and doesn't help us solve anything.

To that evoTARDs, Jerad included, say that Set Theory is faundamental to mathematics!

Yet I am not talking about the whole of set theory, just one tiny insignifant part of it. Strange that those morons cannot grap such a simple fact soi they have to try to bullshit their way to some sort of refutation. That is because in reality they are mathematical dolts.

Jerad wants me to watch lectures on Set Theory. Unfortunately it is obvious that no lectures even touch on the subject I am discussing. No one on this planet can tell me the use of saying two countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality even though it is obvious that one set has more elements than the other when using the standard counting method.

Monday, June 03, 2013

keiths' infinity "proof"

1.Definition: Set A is infinite if every finite subset of A is also a proper subset of A.

That just moves the problem back to defining "finite". But anyway...

2. Proof that infinite sets exist:

a. Assume that infinite sets do not exist. By the definition above, that means that every set has at least one finite subset that is not a proper subset.

OK.

b. Consider all finite subsets S1, S2, etc. of the set N of natural numbers. Every such subset contains a greatest element Ln (if there were any elements greater than Ln, then one of them would be the greatest element instead of Ln).

OK

c. Ln is a finite natural number. Therefore Ln+1 exists and is also a finite natural number.

Ln + 1 would be the new Ln. You just covered that in "b".

d. Ln + 1 is not a member of Sn, but it is a member of N.

No, it would be a member of Sn. Ln+1=Ln, just as YOU said in "b"

Therefore every Sn is a proper subset of N, thus contradicting a).

Not if one follows YOUR directions.

OK, do it for SLn.

SLn= {0,1,2,3,4,...,Ln}

SLn + 1 =
{0,1,2,3,4,...,Ln}

N= {0,1,2,3,4,...,Ln}

SLn finite subset of N that is also an improper
subset. keiths flails away:

The only improper subset of N is N itself, and N is infinite, not finite.

Hey asswipe, you cannot use that which you are trying to prove as proof. No one can prove N is infinite. If N is the set of natural NUMBERS and infinity is NOT a number, then it doesn't belong in the set. However the largest number does belong in the set- largest number Ln, ie greatest element.

And keiths, if Ln = largest number, then Ln + 1 is still the largest number.

SLn is a finite subset of N. Ln= largest number {0,1,2,3,4,...,Ln} the Ln is INSIDE of the brackets keiths. It is the largest NUMBER. So SLn would be the name of the finite set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.

Sunday, June 02, 2013

keiths, argues from and like an asshole

As has been pointed out with much mirth here and elsewhere, the idea of an LKN is silly.

No, that's just an ignorant-based opinion. And anyone can just as easily say that the idea of infinity is silly.

And keiths, your one-to-one correspondence has been shown to be bullshit as the alignment problem crops up. The one-to-one correspondence relies on arbitrary mapping.

OK, so here is what my opponents have to do:

1- Provide a mathematically rigorous definition of infinity

2- Demonstrate infinity exists

If you cannot do that then you whole "argument" is bullshit.

Might as well relabel infinity as Never-Land.

And if Cantor was such a genius, then he must have been correct about the universe being Created. LoL!

But anyway, as I said, we CAN count the elements in an infinite set. We count and count and count- FOREVER. And the set of non-negative integers will always be twice the count as the set of positive even integers (given my last train scenario). And that goes on FOREVER.

Now asshole sez:

Infinity is logically coherent. The LKN isn’t.

That is nothing but your ignorant opinion, keiths. How is infinity logically coherent when no one can demonstrate that it exists?

Then I said- The one-to-one correspondence relies on arbitrary mapping.

keiths' reply:

So does your “method”

Only an ignorant ass would say that and here is keiths. My alignment is natural- number to number- it is natural in that the number line remains as is.

keiths tries to answer my challenge:

In any case, it’s easy to meet your challenge:

1.Definition: Set A is infinite if every finite subset of A is also a proper subset of A.

How is that mathematically rigorous?

2. Proof that infinite sets exist:

a. Assume that infinite sets do not exist. By the definition above, that means that every set has at least one finite subset that is not a proper subset.

b. Consider all finite subsets S1, S2, etc. of the set N of natural numbers. Every such subset contains a greatest element Ln (if there were any elements greater than Ln, then one of them would be the greatest element instead of Ln).

c. Ln is a finite natural number. Therefore Ln+1 exists and is also a finite natural number.

d. Ln + 1 is not a member of Sn, but it is a member of N. Therefore every Sn is a proper subset of N, thus contradicting a).